[Xorp-users] XORP RIP enabled. Why are static routes required?

[Swati Sinha Deb]

Hi Mark,

I have deleted the route 172.20.1.0 from the kernel IP table on router2. 
But still it is not working.

I have uncommented all the #define DEBUG_LOGGING statements.  Yes, the 
debugging is enabled in xrl_port_manager.cc. I had added 
xlog_add_output(FILE* fp) in  xorp_rip_man.cc and tried to see whether 
XrlPortManager<A>::deliver_packet is getting called or not. Unfortunately 
on reading the log file it is not.

Regards,
Swati


--On 24 April 2005 19:19 +0100 Mark Handley <M.Handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> [xorp-users trimmed from cc to avoid too much mail]
>
> How did you enable debugging in RIP?
>
> From the trace below, it looks like no packets are being received by
> the RIP process (although it's possible that the trace doesn't run for
> long enough, or runs at a time when only router1 is up).
>
> From the tcpdumps, it's clear that both routers are correctly sending
> the correct RIP route advertisements (so it looks like the config is
> OK), and that the route advertisements are reaching the other router
> (at least at the IP layer), but there are a lot of requests relative
> to responses, which seems suspicious.
>
> So, the question is whether debugging is enabled in xrl_port_manager.cc?
>
> If debugging is enabled, then we should be seeing messages when
> packets are received (eg by XrlPortManager<A>::deliver_packet), and we
> appear not to be.  In which case there's a problem with message
> reception.
>
> If debugging's not enabled in xrl_port_manager.cc, then please enable
> it, so we can see if the messages are received, and if they are
> received, whether they are being processed or discarded.
>
> Cheers,
> 	Mark

----------------------
Swati Sinha Deb, Research Fellow
Wireless and Networks Research Laboratory,
Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol,
Merchant Venturers Building, Woodland Road,
Bristol BS8 1UB
E-mail: Swati.SinhaDeb@bristol.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0)117 331 5058